[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

And you have evidence to prove this? It seems to be an awfully bold statement.

There has not been a single, cerebral argument as to why gay marriage should not be allowed. The opposition boils down to fear of what's different, unknown, and uncertain; i.e. ignorance and/or bigotry.

Other than religion or personal belief, why should gays not be allowed to marry?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Doesn't mean it isn't true.

Your responses and your Ad Hominem attacks shows the intelligence level of your response.

Your last 6 posts:

2 posts contain only a smilie.
4 posts contain one liners either in a form of a question or an insult.


Why bother posting in the political forum if you don't have anything intelligent to say?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There has not been a single, cerebral argument as to why gay marriage should not be allowed. The opposition boils down to fear of what's different, unknown, and uncertain; i.e. ignorance and/or bigotry.

Other than religion or personal belief, why should gays not be allowed to marry?

How about the semantic definition of marriage? It is not a terribly robust argument, and at times it seems like many people that make it seem to meander a little too closely to something that can be interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as what you allude to here, but I can accept the notion that some people might have legitimate concerns with the label "marriage". I don't agree with them, but I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say that they hate gay people.

The litmus test for these people is asking them whether they would be cool with a civil union with all of the same benefits. If they agree, then my follow up is to ask what the difference is, and it usually seems to have something to do with religion in which case I'm happy to let the religious dudes sort this out because marriage is a religious institution as well as a legal one, and this is where things seem to break down the most. This is the sort of argument that somebody like stupendousman would beat his head against the wall trying to make, but I can accept that the underlying belief may have something other than hate at its core. Then again, I would never be surprised if hate was at the core of this, I would say that this population I'm trying to pinpoint is probably very small. As you know, I'm pretty outspoken in not thinking very highly of several religious matters.

If they disagree, then this would seem to expose that bigotry.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How about the semantic definition of marriage?

We could go over the root of the word and its historical context before Christianity adopted the word to mean only between a man and a woman.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I can accept the notion that some people might have legitimate concerns with the label "marriage".

What legitimate concern would that be? Other than their religion defines it a certain way, and said definition doesn't match the one from the third largest religion in the world.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't agree with them, but I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say that they hate gay people.

I didn't say they hate gay people, I said they're ignorant and/or bigoted.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The litmus test for these people is asking them whether they would be cool with a civil union with all of the same benefits.

I don't have a problem with having a single legal definition as simply Civil Union for everyone. Marriage can be something to be interpreted by their respective personal or religious beliefs.

The problem is that more Conservative states will insist on using the term marriage, and insist that it's only between a man and woman. If those states want to continue using that term, then the Federal Government is going to step in and tell them they can't discriminate against homosexuals.

If Conservative states want to "protect" marriage, then they need to stop offering marriage licenses and only do civil unions for everyone.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why bother posting in the political forum if you don't have anything intelligent to say?

Irony!

[besson3c]

I don't know if "marriage" has been co-opted by a religion, whether some people feel that way, but I know that I'm often fuzzy on whether people use this word in a religious or legal context when used in passing in casual conversation...

I don't know, I'm spitballing here... This is not my argument, I will not attempt to make it, I don't feel this way myself, but I'm open to the idea that somebody could make a reasonable argument that was based on something other than ignorance and bigotry in the religious realm. If you can, maybe it's more effective to target the religion as being ignorant and/or bigoted?

[mrtew]

You may get a few super-religious straight people to accept that their govt marriages are only civil unions but you'll never get gay people to settle for that at this point after their long fight for equal rights so why don't you forget it and think of something else. You thought it would be a nice compromise that would please everybody but I don't think it will please anybody and I think it has zero chance of getting passed into law. Why don't you think of another compromise such as letting everyone have the word marriage and you can settle for "holy matrimony" or something along those lines at your church.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

You may get a few super-religious straight people to accept that their govt marriages are only civil unions but you'll never get gay people to settle for that at this point after their long fight for equal rights so why don't you forget it and think of something else. You thought it would be a nice compromise that would please everybody but I don't think it will please anybody and I think it has zero chance of getting passed into law. Why don't you think of another compromise such as letting everyone have the word marriage and you can settle for "holy matrimony" or something along those lines at your church.

I hope this wasn't directed at me. I was clear that this is not my argument, and that I was just playing devil's advocate. I don't agree with the argument.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Apparently not. (Checks and balances refers to government in general. Executive, Legislative, Judiciary)

You mentioned this in the context of me "framing the debate as Feds vs States". You've cited the three branches of the Federal government as the separation of powers and yes, they do provide checks and balances against one another in a very classic way, but there is still a matter of what constitutional powers the Federal Govt (and its branches) has and whatever rights not provided therein, conferred on the several states. I believe marriage falls under the latter, not the former. This is why I'm not much for DOMA either.

Referring to it as a ballot initiative also undersells the far-reaching nature of a constitutional amendment. If it is in conflict with previous laws and amendments then how else is it supposed to be resolved?

Prop 8 was a ballot initiative. Having passed in 2008, it was also in line with the Federal DOMA passed in '96. Most do not consider marriage to be covered under any fundamental Constitutional principle. The notion of marriage being a right in and of itself is in debate. This may seem surprising to you, but there is also much disagreement about the 14th Amendment being used to support gay marriage. I maintain that the SCOTUS will uphold the right of California to have Prop 8 by 5-4 and that this whole thing hits a stalemate. If the two sides had been working harder at the State level (as opposed to say, slinging insults) to come to an agreement, they may have adopted civil unions or the like, without having to invoke Federal judgement. Not unlike DOMA, only complicating the matter. As long as there are proponents hot after the word "marriage" to the same degree that opponents are hot after defending marriage, there will be a stalemate. I certainly could be wrong and this thing could go 6-3 repealing Prop8, but I have a hunch it won't.

Any thoughts on my comment about amendments requiring supermajorities?

Constitutional amendments must be ratified by 3/4ths of the States which I guess by definition is a supermajority, but not a popular one. With regard to laws, there's little doubt in my mind that this Congress (and others to be fair) would've appreciated needing less votes on some of their proposals and I suspect it is this notion that keeps the "supermajority" requirement idea at bay. To be honest, I've not put a lot of thought into whether or not I would support a popular, supermajority. A supermajority requirement would lend itself to greater legislative rigidity and this could be both good and bad I suppose.

I'm not clear on what you mean by illegitimate relationships and am terrified to assume.

Oh no, I can't lose you too Dakar. Let me explain, when my wife and I got married in the courthouse, during the proceedings the JOP said something to the effect of; "if you think this commitment of marriage to one another is going to magically resolve any problems you may be having with one another, you are wrong." While not exactly an inspirational message at the time, it only cost me 10 bucks () and the lesson was that he's likely seen a lot of failed relationships come and go thinking they were going to legitimize it with a marriage certificate.

I think we're mostly in agreement here. I just find most of the reasoning behind defending marriage to be disingenuous. I don't think it's about the marriages, but about the homosexuals.

I think for most it's the nature of homosexuality and almost nothing to do with the homosexuals. I've had the misfortune of being one of the messengers here, but it seems to me that homosexuality is simply not regarded in the same vein as race or gender and the case for a "marriage right" simply doesn't have the same weight constitutionally or otherwise. I've not been shown how there is anything inherently hateful, bigoted, or homophobic about this sentiment. I submit that it's 2010 and we're still discussing it as evidence. Here's the interesting thing though (again, it seems to me), most do not want to deny the right of two gays to live together or love one another and they do not want to deny gays jobs, or a vote, property, visitation, etc... nor are they anti-gay zealots who want gays locked away from society. While these people certainly exist, I have a problem buying what most are trying to sell here as the prevailing sentiment of opposition. In fact, it really seems little more than a bully-tactic to avoid hearing things some folks simply don't want to hear.

To me it's about the process, but like I said very early on in this whole thing; it's not a battle of mine. I'll discuss it because the subject matter interests me, but "defending marriage" is as meritorious IMO as defending bungie-jumping only with a worse failure rate. I guess I just don't understand it. Don't get me wrong, I have a great marriage and I will defend that with all I've got, but there's nothing about any of this that places my relationship in jeopardy. For example, my wife and I have fought over television programs, who does more in the home, and finances, but we've not once fought about the gay couple living two doors down. They're elderly and their home and yard look impeccable. I'd like to see them live together forever if nothing more than to keep my own property value elevated. In this I wonder if some just aren't expressing defense of marriage very effectively. There are some 1100+ rights and benefits associated with marriage and it really comes down to a matter of what folks want or don't want to contribute to. i.e. Rights? No problem. Benefits? mmmmeh. IMO, there's nothing to suggest any of it should be contributed to and perhaps you're correct in that there may never be full agreement on this. I don't know.

Disagree. Marriage stopped being about moms and dads roughly 50 years ago. That's what makes so much of the opposition illogical.

Then it might be illogical to you that the majority still view marriage as an integral part of building a family and rearing children. I don't think "marriage stopped being about moms and dads 50 years ago" Dakar.

Second, if that logic was acceptable, beliefs as to it being best really isn't entirely a great justification – yes, the traditional family is the most ideal situation, but these other situations aren't exactly disastrous. From what I've read, a lesbian couple is better than a single parent, and aside from some nut-jobs, no one is outraged by the latter situation. (I'll do my best to dig up that study)

In this I wholeheartedly agree with you and there is another disconnect I don't think opponents have truly considered. For example, I'd much rather a child be adopted into a loving same-sex household than to remain in an orphanage. There aren't enough orphanages to house all the children as it is and they're only becoming more congested. I do not have a problem with a same-sex couple raising children. A lesbian friend of mine and her partner are doing as commendable a job raising their boy as anyone else and I don't see any signs of ambiguous roles or anything to suggest a fundamental problem with this as feared by some.

If one act (getting married ) solves all of that, why would they seek to pursue a more complicated route? And that's disregarding the generally held goal for most people of getting married at some point in their lives.

You might be surprised to learn how few are interested in getting married at all Dakar and while this alone doesn't matter in the least, it is this idea combined with the idea that civil unions aren't enough that gives the impression that gays seek more than rights, but validation. There's a reason so much effort and resource has gone into establishing a genetic component for sexuality and I believe with regard to homosexuality it has gone well beyond the scientific endeavor. In short, the farther homosexuals get away from the discussion of their rights, the farther away people get from a willingness to acknowledge them, but if a genetic component remains questionable, the willingness to acknowledge "same-sex marriage" rights will remain separated from interracial marriages, etc... In this, gays are fighting a sort of catch-22 and IMO have a much more difficult case to make. You can see skin color, hear foreign dialect, and you can see anatomical differences, but you cannot see or hear sexual orientation; crudely, generally. Then... there's another problem and that is the vitriol that permeates this issue. For example:

While not knowing it until late last night, I've been essentially parroting Barack Obama's view on same-sex marriage.
In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune Obama said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

From the White House Web site: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

While Obama enjoys a huge degree of support from the gay and lesbian community, I'm an anti-gay bigot, a hate monger, homophobic, etc... If a sect of people continue to alienate those almost entirely aligned with them ideologically by using incendiary rhetoric against them, how on earth do they hope to win the hearts and minds of the remainder of the country?

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While Obama enjoys a huge degree of support from the gay and lesbian community, I'm an anti-gay bigot, a hate monger, homophobic, etc... If a sect of people continue to alienate those almost entirely aligned with them ideologically by using incendiary rhetoric against them, how on earth do they hope to win the hearts and minds of the remainder of the country?

We do NOT support President Obama's position on gay marriage except as contrasted with the typical Republican viewpoint, because it's essentially the same position you espouse. And we are not attempting to win your and Obama's heart and mind... we are attempting to win equal rights and we have given up on winning the popular vote... the forces of hate and fear and intolerance have proven again and again that they can rally enough votes to override all the people that support us or don't care one way or the other. Our only hope is that the federal constitution's guarantee of equal protection of law will allow us to be treated like normal people, and I'm pretty sure that it will. If you're right and the Supremes tell us that marriage is only a fundamental right for same sex couples I guess we'll just have to continue to move to other countries or live with whatever rights and benefits you'll allow us. Pretty pathetic eh?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There has not been a single, cerebral argument as to why gay marriage should not be allowed. The opposition boils down to fear of what's different, unknown, and uncertain; i.e. ignorance and/or bigotry.

Other than religion or personal belief, why should gays not be allowed to marry?

This. Well said.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't know, I'm spitballing here... This is not my argument, I will not attempt to make it, I don't feel this way myself, but I'm open to the idea that somebody could make a reasonable argument that was based on something other than ignorance and bigotry in the religious realm. If you can, maybe it's more effective to target the religion as being ignorant and/or bigoted?

And yet, no one has. And therein lies the basis for my conlusion that anyone opposed to gay marriage is opposed to it because they are homophobic bigots, despite their hollow claims to the contrary.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

We do NOT support President Obama's position on gay marriage except as contrasted with the typical Republican viewpoint, because it's essentially the same position you espouse.

Okay, I can buy that. Let me rephrase my point then;

While Obama enjoyed an overwhelming degree of support from the gay and lesbian community in the election and has never once been referred to as an anti-gay, bigoted, hate monger, and homophobe; I can essentially parrot his view and have all of these things and more thrown in my face. Why? Because there are Republicans who say mean nasty things about homosexuals apparently, never mind the Democrats behind the curtain and never mind civil discourse.

All of this be damned when there's politickin to do.

[mrtew]

I think it's because Obama says it once a year in an attempt to keep to the middle of the road position and not offend anyone while you go on and on and on day after day twisting every legal, political, rational and religious argument and the words of everyone that dare speak on the subject to try to prove that you and only you are right about there being a limit to equal rights for gay Americans.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I think it's because Obama says it once a year in an attempt to keep to the middle of the road position and not offend anyone while you go on and on and on day after day twisting every legal, political, rational and religious argument and the words of everyone that dare speak on the subject to try to prove that you and only you are right about there being a limit to equal rights for gay Americans.

I've never once twisted a legal concept or used any word or argument, religious or otherwise, to deny anyone of any rights or to prove that I am the only one who is right about anything. In fact, I said I could be wrong about the result of this challenge to Prop 8 and I've expressed my own wishes which truly place marriages both gay and straight on equal ground. You and your ilk invoke religious intolerance every time the non-religious collective doesn't see things the way you see things and when someone steps up to offer a view that does not fit into the neat little box you've fashioned for religious people, you get all twitter-pated and burst into projection, conjecture, generalizations, and ad hom. Check your own intolerance my friend. I've repeatedly proclaimed the importance of rights for gays and have given specific ones that I've witnessed being denied them and what IMO could be done to address the problem. I've done all this to participate in a thread someone else started. This is not my daily ritual any more than it is yours.

Because I don't say the exact words you want, how you want them said, and because I'm not in absolute lock-step with your views, you've failed to comprehend a word I've said instead using my posts as a means to springboard into another one of your daily rants on equal rights. You want respect? Give it.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I think it's because Obama says it once a year in an attempt to keep to the middle of the road position and not offend anyone while you go on and on and on day after day twisting every legal, political, rational and religious argument and the words of everyone that dare speak on the subject to try to prove that you and only you are right about there being a limit to equal rights for gay Americans.

Ah, excuse me....This person has forgotten more then you will ever learn. His brain will go directly to the Institute of Science upon his demise, for a study of its incredible capacity. He HAS to share his knowledge, or his head would explode! I thank god everyday that I am able to learn from him. You should do the same.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Irony!

[smacintush]

Just as I said, those against gay marriage have nothing intelligent to say in defense of their position. Nothing.

Of course, were this country operating properly this wouldn't be an issue. There would be no state sanctioning of marriage of any kind, and their would be no tax incentives or penalties relating to marriage. This should be a 100% private issue.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've never once twisted a legal concept or used any word or argument, religious or otherwise, to deny anyone of any rights or to prove that I am the only one who is right about anything.

Your very first post contained the old "but this is a slippery slope that could lead to siblings getting married!" strawman argument.

Great start though.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because I don't say the exact words you want, how you want them said, and because I'm not in absolute lock-step with your views, you've failed to comprehend a word I've said instead using my posts as a means to springboard into another one of your daily rants on equal rights. You want respect? Give it.

Forgive me if these questions have been asked and answered...

If you had the opportunity to vote on the legalization of gay marriage, would you vote to legalize it?

If not, why?

If you feel you've already written a reply to the last question, I'd be happy with a link to the text which best explains it.

[hyteckit]

Interesting article in latimes about sexual predisposition and a prenatal pill that regulated sex hormones during the gestation period.

Medical treatment carries possible side effect of limiting homosexuality - latimes.com

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Forgive me if these questions have been asked and answered...

If you had the opportunity to vote on the legalization of gay marriage, would you vote to legalize it?

If not, why?

If you feel you've already written a reply to the last question, I'd be happy with a link to the text which best explains it.

If it were its own ballot initiative, I probably wouldn't be motivated to get to the polling place for a "yes" vote. To be clear, I've struggled to get myself to the polls for mayoral votes. These just aren't battles of mine. However, If it were part of a package of ballot initiatives, a mayoral vote, or standard election fare and I'm already there voting, I'd give it a tepid "yes" vote. I say tepid because if it were a ballot initiative for civil unions for all or a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, I'd be much more enthusiastic; in the latter, a "no" vote.

[The Final Dakar]

FYI, I've done some paring to try and keep this on the "barely" side of manageable.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You mentioned this in the context of me "framing the debate as Feds vs States". You've cited the three branches of the Federal government as the separation of powers and yes, they do provide checks and balances against one another in a very classic way, but there is still a matter of what constitutional powers the Federal Govt (and its branches) has and whatever rights not provided therein, conferred on the several states. I believe marriage falls under the latter, not the former. This is why I'm not much for DOMA either.

I understand what you're trying to say here, I just disagree (The state has the same three branches of govt. for the same reason). Everything that's happened has occurred within the system.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Prop 8 was a ballot initiative. Having passed in 2008, it was also in line with the Federal DOMA passed in '96.

Once again, Prop 8 was a ballot initiative to amend California's constitution. DOMA is a law. Not the same.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Most do not consider marriage to be covered under any fundamental Constitutional principle. The notion of marriage being a right in and of itself is in debate. This may seem surprising to you, but there is also much disagreement about the 14th Amendment being used to support gay marriage. I maintain that the SCOTUS will uphold the right of California to have Prop 8 by 5-4 and that this whole thing hits a stalemate. If the two sides had been working harder at the State level (as opposed to say, slinging insults) to come to an agreement, they may have adopted civil unions or the like, without having to invoke Federal judgement. Not unlike DOMA, only complicating the matter. As long as there are proponents hot after the word "marriage" to the same degree that opponents are hot after defending marriage, there will be a stalemate. I certainly could be wrong and this thing could go 6-3 repealing Prop8, but I have a hunch it won't.

Yeah, I don't want to get into predictions. What I've read recently though makes it seems like any victory for those that support "traditional" marriage will be rooted in technicality rather than logic.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Constitutional amendments must be ratified by 3/4ths of the States which I guess by definition is a supermajority, but not a popular one. With regard to laws, there's little doubt in my mind that this Congress (and others to be fair) would've appreciated needing less votes on some of their proposals and I suspect it is this notion that keeps the "supermajority" requirement idea at bay. To be honest, I've not put a lot of thought into whether or not I would support a popular, supermajority. A supermajority requirement would lend itself to greater legislative rigidity and this could be both good and bad I suppose.

Not what I was talking about, though the last sentence is my point entirely. Should California (or any state's) voters be able to amend their constitution without a supermajority? Seems unwise to me.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Oh no, I can't lose you too Dakar. Let me explain, when my wife and I got married in the courthouse, during the proceedings the JOP said something to the effect of; "if you think this commitment of marriage to one another is going to magically resolve any problems you may be having with one another, you are wrong." While not exactly an inspirational message at the time, it only cost me 10 bucks () and the lesson was that he's likely seen a lot of failed relationships come and go thinking they were going to legitimize it with a marriage certificate.

That's sort of what I figured.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think for most it's the nature of homosexuality and almost nothing to do with the homosexuals. I've had the misfortune of being one of the messengers here, but it seems to me that homosexuality is simply not regarded in the same vein as race or gender and the case for a "marriage right" simply doesn't have the same weight constitutionally or otherwise.

Yeah, that's what I'm calling BS on. Constitutionality is at best a justification for people who don't like the idea of homosexuals. However, "liking" something has never been justification for outlawing an act in this country (Though we do have a long rich history of trying).

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Then it might be illogical to you that the majority still view marriage as an integral part of building a family and rearing children. I don't think "marriage stopped being about moms and dads 50 years ago" Dakar.

Here's my argument: More children being born out of wedlock, less people having children, and people entering second and third marriages which have nothing to do with child-rearing.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In this I wholeheartedly agree with you and there is another disconnect I don't think opponents have truly considered. For example, I'd much rather a child be adopted into a loving same-sex household than to remain in an orphanage. There aren't enough orphanages to house all the children as it is and they're only becoming more congested. I do not have a problem with a same-sex couple raising children. A lesbian friend of mine and her partner are doing as commendable a job raising their boy as anyone else and I don't see any signs of ambiguous roles or anything to suggest a fundamental problem with this as feared by some.

1000x yes.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You might be surprised to learn how few are interested in getting married at all Dakar and while this alone doesn't matter in the least, it is this idea combined with the idea that civil unions aren't enough that gives the impression that gays seek more than rights, but validation. There's a reason so much effort and resource has gone into establishing a genetic component for sexuality and I believe with regard to homosexuality it has gone well beyond the scientific endeavor. In short, the farther homosexuals get away from the discussion of their rights, the farther away people get from a willingness to acknowledge them, but if a genetic component remains questionable, the willingness to acknowledge "same-sex marriage" rights will remain separated from interracial marriages, etc... In this, gays are fighting a sort of catch-22 and IMO have a much more difficult case to make. You can see skin color, hear foreign dialect, and you can see anatomical differences, but you cannot see or hear sexual orientation; crudely, generally.

I don't think I'd be that surprised and to be blunt: numbers has no impact on whether they should be able to marry. I think it comes down to this: Should we be able to discriminate marriages according to gender? The rest is feels like meaningless semantics.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If it were its own ballot initiative, I probably wouldn't be motivated to get to the polling place for a "yes" vote. To be clear, I've struggled to get myself to the polls for mayoral votes. These just aren't battles of mine. However, If it were part of a package of ballot initiatives, a mayoral vote, or standard election fare and I'm already there voting, I'd give it a tepid "yes" vote. I say tepid because if it were a ballot initiative for civil unions for all or a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, I'd be much more enthusiastic; in the latter, a "no" vote.

Well, on one hand, I think people (mrtew) need to lay-off then. If it's put in front of you, and barring a superior option, you'll vote for it. Case closed.

On the other hand, I needed to ask this. It wasn't clear to me otherwise, and I wouldn't be surprised if others were unclear about it as well. Considering that, I don't think it's unreasonable someone came to the opposite conclusion, and then expressed anger with you over what they understood your argument to be. This is doubly so if what you are arguing about has direct impact on their life (mrtew also).

[besson3c]

[The Final Dakar]

Hey besson, why don't you wait until the thread takes a turn for the worse before littering it with your crap?

[besson3c]

Just a humorous intermission, not a statement or attempt to mock anybody.

[The Final Dakar]

I'd be more sympathetic to a humorous intermission if it didn't involve three large images.

[besson3c]

Sorry, maybe I went a little overboard...

[mrtew]

eBuddy, thanks for supporting equal marriage for all. Because I see changing the entire legal institution of marriage to mere "civil-unions" as implausible I always get the feeling that people who advocate it are trying to distract gay rights activists from true equality with a seperate-but-equal type strategy such as that seen in several jurisdictions today that have such unions for queers only. Couple that with your complex legal and mental manoeuvring and constant information about what "most" believe and what "few" support and I think I can be forgiven for suspecting your true feelings lay with denial of equality, rather than just ordinary apathy. Hopefully, though, this shameful voting on other people's rights is over and the Supreme Court will quickly confirm that the language about people being treated equally which is found in the Federal Constitution and even many state constitutions applies to same-sex relationships and we can put this debate behind us.

[OldManMac]

A well-reasoned article on why gay marriage will eventually come to pass. It's about evidence; one side had it and the other had none.

On Prop 8, it's the evidence, stupid - CNN.com

[Doofy]

I see no reason why flamboyants shouldn't have to suffer mother-in-laws too.

However... ...what's all this guff about Amerikkka being some kind of democracy? Is that what's supposed to happen in a democracy? Vote... ...then if don't like the result just change it in court?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I see no reason why flamboyants shouldn't have to suffer mother-in-laws too.

However... ...what's all this guff about Amerikkka being some kind of democracy? Is that what's supposed to happen in a democracy? Vote... ...then if don't like the result just change it in court?

If the result of a popular vote is making a law that is unconstitutional the answer is absolutely, 100% YES.

EDIT: if there were a ballot initiative to ban personal ownership of firearms that passed 51% to 49%, even though such ownership is protected by the 2nd Amendment*, would you not think that could and should be overturned by the courts? Democracy does mean the majority can vote and pass any law they want.

*let's not get into a gun debate. This was the best example I could come up with of a popular vote enacting a clearly unconstitutional law.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

If the result of a popular vote is making a law that is unconstitutional the answer is absolutely, 100% YES.

I'm not entirely sure where gay marriage is mentioned in the US Constitution Manifesto. Or for that matter, where it mentions speed limits.

Why would you have a vote on a matter if one of the outcomes would be unconstitutional? Why bother? Why not instead say something like "it'd be unconstitutional so shut your fat mouths or move to France"?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm not entirely sure where gay marriage is mentioned in the US Constitution Manifesto. Or for that matter, where it mentions speed limits.

Why would you have a vote on a matter if one of the outcomes would be unconstitutional? Why bother? Why not instead say something like "it'd be unconstitutional so shut your fat mouths or move to France"?

Doofy, are you aware of the Aug. 4 ruling? From the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se...nited_States):

On August 4, 2010, a decision by the US District Court in Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional.[33] This ruling is expected to affect all same-sex marriage bans in the U.S. As a result, an appeal is likely, with the case anticipated to be ultimately decided by the US Supreme Court.[34]

[Doofy]

Yes Bess, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact that Manifesto Amendment 14 requires due process yet you still have civil forfeiture on the books.

Thus, I can conclude that TPTB will do whatever they want whenever they want without reference to the Manifesto unless it suits them.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

[besson3c]

So what you are saying is that your interpretation of the law is correct, and the US district court's is wrong?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So what you are saying is that your interpretation of the law is correct, and the US district court's is wrong?

I'm sure the SCOTUS will be deciding that soon, in a 5-4 decision one way or the other...

[Doofy]

No Bess, I'm saying it's ALL bullshit.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No Bess, I'm saying it's ALL bullshit.

It is not clear why you think the ruling is bullshit, and what you would base your argument on.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is not clear why you think the ruling is bullshit, and what you would base your argument on.

You're not hearing me Bess. I'm saying it's ALL bullshit. ALL of it. The ruling. California. Prop 8. Gays. Governments. Mormons. Amerikkka. The US Manifesto. Democracy. The contents of your garage. The new Ford Focus. Lady Gaga. ALL bullshit.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You're not hearing me Bess. I'm saying it's ALL bullshit. ALL of it. The ruling. California. Prop 8. Gays. Governments. Mormons. Amerikkka. The US Manifesto. Democracy. The contents of your garage. The new Ford Focus. Lady Gaga. ALL bullshit.

Ahhh, I thought you were trying to say something reasonable. The contents of my garage kick ass, I'll have you know! Unless you don't like hot naked young (but of age) women?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

eBuddy, thanks for supporting equal marriage for all.

Don't thank me, I support civil unions for all. The entire notion of any acknowledgement of partnerships call them marriages or otherwise is already inequality. What is to say that marriage or a union of any type is preferential to singleness that singles should be "separate, but equal" or hell; separate in general?

I know, all that complex legal and mental maneuvering that's created an intellectual trap door for you that allows for nothing more than feelings, speculation, and ad hom. Show me your face.

Because I see changing the entire legal institution of marriage to mere "civil-unions" as implausible I always get the feeling that people who advocate it are trying to distract gay rights activists from true equality with a seperate-but-equal type strategy such as that seen in several jurisdictions today that have such unions for queers only. Couple that with your complex legal and mental manoeuvring and constant information about what "most" believe and what "few" support and I think I can be forgiven for suspecting your true feelings lay with denial of equality, rather than just ordinary apathy. Hopefully, though, this shameful voting on other people's rights is over and the Supreme Court will quickly confirm that the language about people being treated equally which is found in the Federal Constitution and even many state constitutions applies to same-sex relationships and we can put this debate behind us.

"... to distract gay rights activists from true equality"

The Supreme Court will do nothing quickly and they just may find in favor of California's right to have Prop 8. You'd do as well to ensure you're happy with your relationship. Whatever enables homophobes to subvert law to deny you rights today will be no different with a new law tomorrow. I would support your right to air your grievances for equal justice and protection under the law in accordance with actual constitutional principles.

After all, it's your constant insistence that "civil unions" aren't enough that gives folks the impression you're not interested in "equality" or "rights" at all, but something else entirely; something the government can neither grant you nor take away. Perhaps if you were a little less activist and more cooperative, there'd be more productive discourse and real progress.

[kmkkid]

My best and only advice if you're a gay American, or just an American for that matter, is to move to Canada....... before America goes for any more of a shit.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Don't thank me, I support civil unions for all.

Is there any difference in what we support except that you insist on changing the name and I insist on keeping it the same?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The entire notion of any acknowledgement of partnerships call them marriages or otherwise is already inequality. What is to say that marriage or a union of any type is preferential to singleness that singles should be "separate, but equal" or hell; separate in general?

That's actually an excellent point that I have thought of or heard stated so well. I'll have to consider that for a while! Thanks!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I know, all that complex legal and mental maneuvering that's created an intellectual trap door for you that allows for nothing more than feelings, speculation, and ad hom. Show me your face.

I think when you sprinkle your intelligent and reasoned analysis with that juvenile catchphrase it really hurts my ability to see you as someone to take seriously.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"... to distract gay rights activists from true equality"

Yeah I think that up until now the term "civil union" has always been used for a separate-but-equal type of relationship that gays are allowed to have instead of the marriages that straight people enter into. Am I wrong? That's not true equality, that's a distraction from it just like the "equality" that black people endured in the 50's was.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The Supreme Court will do nothing quickly and they just may find in favor of California's right to have Prop 8. You'd do as well to ensure you're happy with your relationship. Whatever enables homophobes to subvert law to deny you rights today will be no different with a new law tomorrow. I would support your right to air your grievances for equal justice and protection under the law in accordance with actual constitutional principles.

Thanks I'm very happy in my marriage and am MUCH happier in it now that I have true equality. You're totally wrong. In my new country homophobes have no ability to subvert law to deny me rights. Legalizing marriage for gays here totally changed the legal and social status of gay people and there is no legal ability for people to discriminate against us whatsoever. We have no need to air our grievances for equal justice because we don't have any grievances. And it's astounding how fast everyone has changed their attitudes too. Two miles away in Michigan where they've changed the law to make our relationship unconstitutional you go into a store to buy a bed with your husband and people practically faint. Here they literally don't even bat an eye. They're not even faking it, they actually don't think a thing of it. I haven't seen one person wince or even glance away since I moved here 4 years ago aside from the American teenagers that come over to party on the weekends. And I think there's a lot lower percentage of gay people here too than across the river. It's just that here people know it's OK and they accept it so much faster than you can ever believe.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

After all, it's your constant insistence that "civil unions" aren't enough that gives folks the impression you're not interested in "equality" or "rights" at all, but something else entirely; something the government can neither grant you nor take away. Perhaps if you were a little less activist and more cooperative, there'd be more productive discourse and real progress.

I'm not the slightest bit activist unless you count this thread and marching in the NY parade 20 years ago. And the activists have made TONS of progress. The federal court ruled a few weeks ago that equal marriage is the law of the land in the US. I almost think that civil unions for all might have been fine before we won the right to marry but please be serious and answer a question honestly and practically. Do you really think there is any support or movement behind your idea of changing the name of the entire institution of marriage for everyone just to avoid letting gay people use the word, or are you just insisting that I agree to it for the sake of some religious quasi-intellectual argument? I just don't see it happening and I just don't get what changing the word is supposed to accomplish other that to derail the conversation. The issue is about equality and you say that's all fine as long as you call it something else and now the discussion is about the word and how to use it in a sentence and where marriages will be performed as opposed to unions and who can get married and who can get unionized, and what will happen to people that already got married at city hall and whether church wedding have any legal meaning when it's really all the same thing. No? Isn't it just a technique to keep shifting and confusing the argument so most people that really don't give a crap walk away and it's only the religious nuts and the gay people voting against eachother, knowing that the religious nuts will win every time?